RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "If all governments lie, what are the chances of anyone figuring out the truth or even anything close to the truth about twelve governments? One might be just as well off using a dartboard or a Ouija board to sort through the levels of deceit in play."

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (photo: AP)
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (photo: AP)


America's Empire Has No Clothes

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

05 September 13

 

"All governments lie ..." – I.F.Stone, American writer, c. 1967

ssume for a moment that I.F. Stone knew what he was talking about.

Then consider the reality that there are at least 12 governments directly engaged in support of one of the sides in the Syrian civil war.

These governments include the United States, Russia, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Iran, as well as the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian rebels (who should probably count as two or more "governments").

If all governments lie, what are the chances of anyone figuring out the truth or even anything close to the truth about twelve governments? One might be just as well off using a dartboard or a Ouija board to sort through the levels of deceit in play.

But Stone didn't just say "all governments lie," true as that may be. The full quote goes like this:

All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.
In a Time of Torment: 1961-1967 (1967), p. 317

As we watch our public figures wrestle publicly with their "agonizing" decisions about American actions for or against Syria, it's increasingly hard to know who, if anyone, actually believes the words they speak.

On August 20, 2012, President Obama told a news conference:

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.... We're monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. [emphasis added]

On September 4, 2013, the president told a news conference:

First of all, I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line. That wasn't a thing I just kinda made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two: my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line, and America and Congress's credibility's on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

The president could have said most of that in the first place in 2012. He could have framed the issue in terms of international treaties and the "international community" (or at least the United Nations) then. So why didn't he, since it was all just as true a year ago as it is now?

The question is not whether Obama knows he's lying, but why is he lying?

Well, it was also just as false in 2012. When the president says "we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," he glosses over the reality that no government's response to the use of chemical weapons in recent decades has involved much moral outrage. (In 2001, the U.S. withdrew from the first round of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, effectively scuttling the international community's effort to control biological weapons.)

When Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran during their eight-year war (1980-1988), the "international community" was largely silent. The U.N. Security Council issued a statement that "chemical weapons had been used," but didn't say who used them and didn't suggest doing anything about it. The United States was the lone vote against issuing this statement. The U.S. under the Reagan administration rather approved the gassing of Iranians and supplied satellite intelligence to help their proxy government under Saddam Hussein attack the heaviest concentrations of Iranian troops.

In 1991, the CIA estimated that Iraq gas attacks killed 50,000 Iranian soldiers and left another 100,000 with long-term health effects. The CIA did not estimate civilian casualties. There was no outcry from the United States or the "international community." Iraq had international help in developing its chemical weapons from governments and/or companies in the U.S., West Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K., France, Australia, Italy, and East Germany,

A similar world silence lasted throughout the ten-year campaign Saddam's government waged against the Kurds in Iraq, including chemical weapons attacks during 1987-1989. The toll was hundreds of thousands of Kurds. The U.S. and the "international community" raised no outcry against the chemical weapons, or the genocide they implemented. American special envoy Donald Rumsfeld paid a friendly state visit to Saddam Hussein at the same time the U.S. knew Iraq was gassing Iranians.

The question of chemical weapons use only becomes more complicated when one starts to consider who uses white phosphorous and depleted Uranium, since several governments have recently used them, including the U.S. in the Balkans and Iraq. These are apparent crimes that might be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court, especially if the "international community" wanted real credibility.

Is the official moral argument the first clue to the official immoral purpose?

In other words, President Obama is right to call these chemical weapons moral standards mere "notions," but he distorted reality to call them "norms." As for "lip service," that denigrating phrase indicates his attitude, that the high-minded platitudes of moral diplomacy are meaningless – until it's useful to give them meaning for some tactical purpose. The attack on Syria that the president has proposed is unprecedented – no nation has attacked another because it used chemical weapons.

On September 3, 2013, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California met with the president and then said this to a news conference:

President Obama did not draw the red line, humanity drew it decades ago – 170 some countries supporting the convention on not using chemicals, chemical warfare. So, it is really something that from a humanitarian standpoint cannot be ignored or else we cannot say 'never again.' Secondly, from a national security standpoint, it will send a very clear message to those who have weapons of mass destruction of any variety, that they should forget about using them.

Pelosi is 73. She has been in Congress since 1987. She has not led any crusade against chemical weapons used by Iraq, the U.S., or anyone else. On September 4, she refused to comment on past U.S. support for Iraq's use of chemical weapons. But NOW chemical weapons are important to her? Not credible.

On September 3, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations committee:

Now, some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about President Obama's red line. I could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. This debate is about the world's red line. It's about humanity's red line. And it's a red line that anyone with a conscience ought to draw. This debate is also about Congress' own red line....

Kerry is 70. He served in the Senate for almost 30 years (1985-2013). He did not object loudly to Iraq's use of chemical weapons at the time, nor did he make a big issue of it after the fact. Despite his active pursuit of a variety of well-publicized issues, Kerry has never led any crusade against chemical weapons used by anyone. But NOW chemical weapons are important to him? Not credible.

If you're not telling the truth, does it matter whether you're lying?

Almost everyone in Congress or at a high level in the administration is old enough to know the history of American actions regarding chemical weapons. If they don't know, they should know. And they have a responsibility to know, and to tell the truth. That is the red line that matters most, and they have crossed it, and now the credibility of the American body politic is being challenged – again.

On September 4, 2013, Democratic congressman Alan Grayson of Florida asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to release transcripts of Syrian generals talking about the August 21 gas attack, reported by the government to confirm Syrian culpability and reported by others to express surprise. Grayson suggested releasing the transcripts to let the public judge for itself and not be misled.

Hagel responded: "I'm not aware of the administration misleading the American public on this issue, or any other issue."

On September 5, 2013, President Obama spoke at a news conference in Sweden, where he made an apparent Freudian slip that went uncorrected:

"I can say without confidence, chemical weapons were used."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+100 # pappajohn 2013-09-06 16:12
We need a war, dammit!

Halliburton's profits are down. Northrup Grumman stock is stagnant. Oil is almost getting affordable! Wall Street is concerned and their employees (Democrats and Republicans) better do something or there will be Hell to pay!

Please don't keep asking for logic or truth. We need to drop a few billion in cruise missiles on some brown people! Stir something up before peace breaks out! Don't be helping with the millions of refugees, there's entirely too much calm in the world.

(Sorry Syrians, but these guys couldn't give a flying f*** about your well being...)
 
 
+22 # kochadoodledoo 2013-09-07 06:05
America has assumed the role of a military superpower in the world. That means that the military industry supports the wasteful lifestyles most Americans know and love and, accordingly, assigns us the role of the world's police. Until I read this article, I thought that required our "punishing" the Assad regime on behalf of the 98% of the world's nations who, I was told, were in agreement that chemical weapons are forbidden. I was glad to see the President make Congress be involved in the Syrian decision, and in light of all these "lies" and "liars," I believe we should officially condemn the recent killing of 1500 Syrian men, women, and children with chemical weapons and let the U.N. determine what action it wants the rest of the world to take.
 
 
+3 # 666 2013-09-07 10:12
everyone should read this article at consortium news:

https://ex.fit.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=1Ic0INlwyU23Ui4q9VnTAq25b796f9AI3iVO39Xo7FGxmS31luu1Ztn8GrrJxVIiz-NVbyWbHJc.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fconsortiumnews.com%2f2013%2f09%2f06%2fobama-warned-on-syrian-intel%2f
 
 
+10 # Activista 2013-09-07 12:27
dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/obama-warned-on-intel-about-syrian/
"We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”
Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical attack ... click URL above or search:
obama warned on syrian intel
Who wants Iran war in the Middle East - NOT American people
 
 
+8 # jazzman633 2013-09-07 12:18
Thank you, pappa...well said.

As Jon Stewart recently noted, "America may be called a 'superpower' -- but it doesn't really HAVE super powers.
 
 
+66 # RMDC 2013-09-06 16:38
forget the red line. It is only Netanyahoo-spea k for idiots.

Obama's plans to bomb Syria are war crimes. The logic is insane -- one pile of dead bodies from chemical wespons will be replaced with a second pile of dead bodies from Obama's bombs.

Watch this --
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/6/iran_contra_redux_prince_bandar_heads
 
 
+29 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-09-07 00:03
One other factor. Speaking of chemical weapons, DU is a fake name for uranium that is 60-70 % as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. Yet, not one member of the congressional committee which testified in the last few days ever mentioned or asked whether or not the U.S. would use D U in any bombs to be dropped in Syria. One gruesome fact of using a chemical weapon. When the chemical weapon kills a targeted human or group of humans, the gas does not keep on killing. D U, the fake name for a weapon of mass destruction and as used by the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan "keeps on killing" for millions of years. Southern Iraq will be nuclear hot for millions of years. "the horrible" gift that keeps on giving. A 7-10 fold increase in cancer rates in Iraq since records were kept before and after the war, especially in Southern Iraq. Isn't it possible that should the U.S. use D U nuclear warfare, that the U.S. action will be far greater worse, gruesome than what the Syrian leader is doing to his own people?
 
 
+3 # Granny Weatherwax 2013-09-08 08:20
The problem with DU is not that it is radioactive (although it is, and this is also a problem).

The major problem with DU is that it is extremely toxic and teratogenic.
 
 
+1 # hbheinze 2013-09-08 17:48
Granny, I had to look up "teratogenic" and found out that you covered the idea that was in my mind--all the horrid birth defects that DU has caused.
 
 
+28 # CandH 2013-09-06 18:35
All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.
– In a Time of Torment: 1961-1967 (1967), p. 317

"Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran." […]

"We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliati on is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”"
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/
 
 
-13 # universlman 2013-09-06 21:09
Apparently, the paralysis infecting our Congress has spread to the Security Council of the U.N.
 
 
+44 # MidwesTom 2013-09-06 21:41
It is all about a pipeline. People are apparently disposable.
 
 
+17 # Billy Bob 2013-09-07 05:33
As it was with Afghanistan and Iraq, and as it will be with Iran. The shadowy figures behind PNAC are patient and they'll get their way, one way or another.
 
 
-11 # brux 2013-09-06 22:01
>> America's Empire Has No Clothes

Simplifying of course ...

TO BE THE BIGGEST SWINGING DICK YOU DO NOT NEED CLOTHES

There is something here that most everyone is reducing to an emotional miscalculation based on their emotional values of everyday life.

In the global word as uncomfortable and dizzying as it is, that just doesn't work.

If America starts behaving on a geopolitical model of isolationism, we would start to lose our power where most of our power is ... whether we like it or not.

For example, say you the richest person in a group, and the group decided to vote to institute progressive taxes ... you would stand to lose the most, but if it was done right, you might gain from this as well. Certainly you would not want to give up your advantage unless you could be sure.

Well, no one has provided any other way for the US to be in the world, besides just isolationist, and that has been shown to be a non-starter, it either will not work or it will take way past any of our lifetimes to sort out in history.

So, both sides have to realistic - an impossible compromise must be reached, perhaps social and economic reforms for recognition of the US global police role. Universal health care, Living wage, continuing education for the people.
 
 
-1 # WBoardman 2013-09-09 09:56
"If America starts behaving on a geopolitical model of isolationism, we would start to lose our power where most of our power is ... whether we like it or not."

Brux expresses a popular misleading argument
which distorts any rational judgment
by demanding a false choice.

The suggestion that NOT bombing Syria
makes the U.S. isolationist is not only false,
it is demagogic.

When the U.S. doesn't bomb Syria,
in that lucky event, the U.S. will remain
the most globally engaged world power,
with troops on the ground on in more than 700
overseas military bases (compared to Russia's ONE --
in Syria).

At this point in our history, anyone playing the
"isolationist" card is a snake oil salesman,
trying to sell you one more intervention
that will do you no good.

And Brux's argument snakes back on itself
as the last paragraph explodes in contradiction.

"impossible" is right.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-09-10 20:56
Very colorful language.

I think you are so busy trying to dislike me and attack me you cannot hear what I am saying.

Let me distill if for you ... we are not going to reverse our military-indust rial complex, we may at best control it, and use it for some good. That is, we should learn to use our military to accomplish progress.

We also need to accomplish progress at home, meaning we have to change the mix of support in our nation from all corporate and military to more human and citizen oriented.

That is not going to be done in any kind of revolution, America does not work that way and we may end up far worse off than we are now if we had some revolution.

So, incrementally, what baby steps do we need to take to move away from our big problems and towards some solutions ... we need a grand compromise between people and government, what you say is impossible, which is exactly why I am saying that nothing is going to change.

You just see that you think I want to physically bomb Syria ... that is not really true. If we controlled the Syrian government in to giving up their WMDs like we failed to in Iraq, and began an inspection regime, that would work to, but in any case the goal is to stay engaged actively and aggressively.

I assume you are against that?
 
 
+15 # Activista 2013-09-06 23:52
"The question of chemical weapons use only becomes more complicated when one starts to consider who uses white phosphorous and depleted Uranium, since several governments have recently used them ..."
google: chemical weapons used in Gaza
and get About 4,040,000 results:
Israel Claims Syria Used Chemical Weapons, But Israel Has Used White Phosphorus
Israel has admitted using phosphorous bombs during the war against Lebanon last summer, just days after being accused by an Italian television documentary programme of using dense inert metal missiles, which are highly carcinogenic, against the Palestinians in Gaza in July and August.
Israel Guilty of War Crimes. Chemical Weapons Used In Gaza. But see how the international community stands ...etc. etc.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-09-10 20:59
> "The question of chemical weapons use

Is it a question ... seems like you think Israel is the only country that does?

So, Israel also admitted what happened, and they said it was a mistake if I remember correctly.

A dense inert metal missile .... that sounds like a bullet?
 
 
+6 # Activista 2013-09-07 00:07
"President Obama did not draw the red line, HUMANITY drew it decades ago – 170 some countries supporting the convention on not using chemicals, chemical warfare .."
www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/
ORGANISATION FOR THE
PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
States which have not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention . 1 Israel
2 Myanmar
States that have neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention -
1 Angola
2 Egypt
3 North Korea
4 South Sudan
5 Syria
Seems that Pelosi does not consider neither Israel or Israel a "humanity".
 
 
+30 # Pondering 2013-09-07 01:30
Was the Agent Orange used in Vietnam not a chemical weapon? Is radioactive uranium used in projectiles not a chemical weapon? Is something being overlooked or ignored in discussion of this issue of war crimes? Are we engaged in an unconscious projection of our national criminality?
 
 
+12 # lorenbliss 2013-09-07 03:51
Note how beyond their Big Lies, the politicians move ever closer to admitting the one true purpose of the United States is world conquest.

Indeed the USian One Percent has been intent on world conquest at least since 1898 and the Spanish-America n War. It was only the failure of the 1934 Bankers Plot that saved the nation from becoming part of the Nazi Axis and prevented the U.S. from achieving world conquest as the chief financier and natural-resourc e supplier of Hitler's Greater Third Reich.

Now of course the U.S. is itself the de facto Fourth Reich, precisely what the Nazi war criminals it so enthusiasticall y embraced after World War II always dreamed it would be.

Thus “protection of American interests” has become the 21st Century equivalent of the Nazi quest for “lebensraum” – conquered lands, complete with conquered peoples reduced to slavery.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2013-09-07 05:35
A democratic republic cannot coexist with a colonial empire, a theocracy, or a police state. These things are all mutually contradictory to democracy of any kind.
 
 
+41 # walt 2013-09-07 05:54
The biggest question remains: Who is controlling the US government?

Those older folks among us wonder about the overall behavior we have seen our government engage in over the last dozen years. We knew we were not perfect, but what we've seen in recent years defies our imaginations.

A preemptive invasion of Iraq pressured by lies, leaving troops in Afghanistan for 13 years, drone killings, A Patriot Act and the NDAA that strips away freedom like never before, a soldier and a government contractor going public about outrageous spying on our own people and other governments,and now a massive push against the will of the majority for yet another invasion. All hard to comprehend.

We know who our elected government people are. The question is, who are they representing? We can be sure it's not the American people.
 
 
+25 # pappajohn 2013-09-07 07:32
Our government does the bidding of those who got them elected--the banks, corporations and 1%. No one else.

The rest of us are just along for the ride...
 
 
+5 # brux 2013-09-07 11:04
> The rest of us are just along for the ride...

I'd say we used to be along for the ride,
now we are dumped by the side of the road
to watch everyone else go by and we cannot
even get picked up for a hitchhike.

If economic competition trumps democracy
then it is economic competition that we
must understand and gain the power to
regulate.
 
 
+4 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 17:26
economic competition has been dumped and trampled along with the people. What we have now is multinational monopoly, a plutocracy without nationality. And we need to learn to understand its plans and projects and we need to learn, quickly, to get ourselves into our government, our information sources, and our economy. Politicians from any major political party are funded by and indebted to the billionaires who contribute millions to the political parties. We have to dump them by the side of the road and come up with people from among ourselves who are competent people and have expertise in a single area whom we can get to run for office and whom we can elect. We need lots of them. And we need to gather aides, staff, advisors, cabinet members, and so on from among ourselves. We need to do some work. We can't rely on asking the plutocrats, please, do what is good for us instead of increasing your wealth and power.
 
 
+3 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 17:20
You said it. It's a government of corporate representatives , by corporate-writt en legislation, for corporate benefit. If we want a government of the people, we need to find among ourselves a large group of expert and competent people who are willing to run for office in our government and to actually represent us (not corporate lobbyists) while they are in office. We need to do some work as citizens to make that group come together and get on the ballot.
 
 
+1 # pappajohn 2013-09-08 08:17
Harder than it looks. I tried last year:

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/26-26/11918-how-to-lose-in-politics-by-telling-the-truth

But the 1% is terrified, deep down, which is why the Occupy movement frightened them so much. They're just not sure how much abuse they can pile on the 99% before they have gone too far.

I'm afraid that things will need to get much worse before the apathetic electorate finally wakes up.
 
 
+3 # brux 2013-09-07 11:02
That's a good point,
a lot of these concepts get blurred when talking about
real world political realities, such as global warming,
competition for resources, destabilizing advances in
technology and even racial integrity/racism.

We can read between some lines looking at the
history of the US and say that the US has always
had economic and political interests outside its
borderas - and that has morphed into a kind of
empire, but not what was typically called an
empire classically.

We seem to believe in and want to motivate
business as a uniting system, and as the world
gets smaller the urgency of this trumps democracy
and our own people.

Our people, us, me, you for the most part are
stuck in a system of hopelessness because the
overriding concerns are the survival and triumph
of the US system.

And I have to say Americans are greedy little SOBs,
as long as all this did was to enslave workers in
other countries, or create a non-white slave class
in the US, we did not think about things or worry
about them.

It is only now that we have mindlessly gone along
with all of it and seen where it leads that some of
us complain.
 
 
0 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 17:33
Progress can continue to unfold in the areas of freedom and justice for all, except that at this point those things are going backwards fast. The situation today makes us, Americans, more aware of our impact on the people in other countries, and that is a good thing. Increased awareness is a good thing. Now, we need to come together as "the people" and find non-politicians who are willing to run for offices in our government, who are willing to represent the good of the people, and if we can do that, the people of the United States, the majority, would work for good that would have a good impact in the world, such as reducing global warming, US interference in foreign countries, and breaking up monopolies that wield power more and more globally every day.
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 17:17
They are definitely not representing the people. And they are not people that we knew as people before they were politcians, either. It has recently become very clear to me what a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" actually means. It means elected representatives who are just folks, people we know as experts in their field and whose goals and ideas we appreciate before they run for any office---not politicians whose career is "being in office." Of the people means NOT of politicians. It means not people offered to us by either the Republican party or the democrat party. It means a government made up of individuals who are people we know and admire, not politicians who we learn about during their campaign to get into office. Government by the people means exactly the same thing. It means that the regular people (not politicians) who get elected actually write the legislation that they introduce themselves, research issues themselves, write their own news releases, and read mail from their constituents and try to represent the people who elected them. Government for the people, obviously, means laws would favor the welfare of people, defined as human beings and not defined as corporations that make money. If we want a government for the people, it will need to be a government of the people, and not of politicians, by the people we elect and not by the corporate CEO's who fund political parties and their candidates. We need to do some work!!
 
 
+18 # Trish42 2013-09-07 08:23
I no longer like my country. This is no longer a country of honor and seems unable to love or even work together with people who don't share their ideology or skin color. Individualism and money are our gods.
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 17:38
If these are not your characteristics , then there is still hope for your country. You are part of the people of your country, and with a great deal of effort, I am still hoping that we the people can get into our government and represent ourselves. The people of the United States are not running this country at this time and the government of this country does not represent its people. We need to change that situation, through enormous hard work on the part of the people who have mostly been waiting for the major political parties to give them candidates who will represent them and take care of them. We can't do that anymore. We have to represent ourselves, find our own candidates, and elect them with our votes. We need to make it a government of the people, by the people, for the people by really working hard to get people like us into our government.
 
 
0 # kochadoodledoo 2013-09-08 05:10
It takes LOTS OF MONEY these days to get elected. How do you propose we the peons get our candidates elected? Perhaps a consumer boycott to cut into the profits of they the corporations?
 
 
-15 # andreaostrovletania 2013-09-07 08:46
I.F. Stone had ties to the USSR and lied that South Korea attacked North Korea first. He was a master of deceit.
 
 
+7 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:16
This is a sad right wing canard.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/04/22/slandering-if-stone.html
 
 
+3 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:21
"lied that South Korea attacked North Korea first"

This allegation is false.

Stone's argument is complex, but comes down to blaming MacArthur for not heading off the North Korean invasion, because MacArthur wanted to confront China.

http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Korean-War-Stone/dp/0853451613
 
 
+10 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:24
Finally, this whole comment is irrelevant to the article and merely an ad hominem attack on Stone.

Even if the comment was true in any part
(and it's not)
how would it disprove Stone's assertion that
"All governments lie..." ?

It wouldn't.

And they do.
 
 
+2 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 18:00
I have a dream. I have a dream of a government of the people who don't lie, by the people who don't lie, for the people who don't lie. If we are going to have such a government, we need to get working to find such humans who would be willing to get into our government with the support of a very large group of others who also don't lie. Then we need to elect all of them.
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2013-09-07 12:13
Quoting andreaostrovletania:
I.F. Stone had ties to the USSR and lied that South Korea attacked North Korea first. He was a master of deceit.

Proof please.
He was a master of non-conformity and dissent towards the US and any other death machine and a chief critic of it's patsy, content-lite monopoly owner-media, which has gotten even worse since his death.
 
 
+1 # dd214 2013-09-07 09:45
The American Way says that we need another century to understand what the Emancipation Proclamations means. Like what is IS? Or how do you spell WE?
 
 
+11 # reiverpacific 2013-09-07 09:45
No clothes, no Peace, no Honor -like Nixon and Kissinger, Dimwits and Cheney before this emperor -and Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize too, instead of lifetime jail sentence or the gallows in Chile.
I've been quoting these very lines from 'Izzy' Stone off the top of my head on RSN for months now, so here's another couple of good and relevant ones.
"Lifelong dissent has more than acclimated me cheerfully to defeat. It has made me suspicious of victory. I feel uneasy at the very idea of a Movement. I see every insight degenerating into a dogma, and fresh thoughts freezing into lifeless party line".
And even better.
"The fault I find with most American newspapers (and TV -my insert) is not the absence of dissent. it is the absence of news. With a dozen or so honorable exceptions, most American newspapers carry very little news. Their main concern is advertising".
That's why the US Owner-media are beating the war-drums; their advertising revenues will skyrocket (and shares of their weapon making conglomerates that own some of them) if there is a new "Shock and Awe" aimed at Allepo from above and a safe distance off shore like a video game.
BTW, if there are to be no "Boots on the ground", why is there a large contingent of US Marines on the ships cruising to Syria in the Med'?
The Emperor and his handlers are stark-naked and goose-bumped all over!
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:29
There are boots on the ground NOW,
just not Syrian ground
(yet, or perhaps just admittedly).

There are at least 900 U.S. troops in Jordan,
including Special Forces, and they've been there
since joint exercises in the spring.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/us-troops-in-jordan_n_3484024.html
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:30
There are U.S. Troops in Turkey, too.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-07/world/36188912_1_hacipasa-syrian-border-reyhanli
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 11:36
There are U.S. troops in Egypt, too,
and probably Israel.

http://rt.com/usa/us-troops-deploy-egypt-185/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/world/middleeast/us-troops-arrive-in-israel-for-missile-defense-exercise.html?_r=0
 
 
+3 # Activista 2013-09-07 12:32
"Syrian leader is doing to his own people?"
Syrian leader is protecting his own people from foreign terrorists supported by USA, Israel, Qatar, Saudi ..
 
 
-1 # WBoardman 2013-09-07 17:47
Well,
seems more like
Assad is protecting his own people
the way Medea protected her own children.

But the outside forces ARE real, too.
 
 
0 # Activista 2013-09-08 00:33
Were all ANTI-Assad demonstration two years peaceful, with no foreign involvement and no shots from Muslim Brotherhood? Gunmen had opened fire on worshippers and security forces, killing at least two policemen.
Are there huge PRO Assad demonstration in Syria/Damascus we do not hear much about
Why majority of people in Syria support government and promised reforms?
Search
brutality of Syrian Rebels video
Please explain and do not lie.
 
 
+8 # jwb110 2013-09-07 11:25
I, for one, am glad that an discussion internationally has happened and that citizens, not gov'ts, are talking about this. The US has been sold this bill of goods once and caveat emptor may very well be the order of the day. We , the people, are tired of never ending war, no exit plan invasions, being robbed of out tax dollars to subsidize the rich.
I voted for this President, the other option was inconceivable, but his behavior in all of this looks impeachable to me. If corporations are people and must be heard then people are people and must be heard.
The back-pedaling by the entire White House is an national embarrassment. It is potentially more dangerous then every Hawk in Congress Forging ahead with a war in Syria will make it impossible to rebuild this gov't and its credibility to its citizens.
 
 
+2 # karenvista 2013-09-07 14:10
JWB110- You seem to still be harboring this quaint idea that the U.S. government has some miniscule amount of credibility and room for embarrassment left.

"The back-pedaling by the entire White House is an national embarrassment. It is potentially more dangerous then every Hawk in Congress Forging ahead with a war in Syria will make it impossible to rebuild this gov't and its credibility to its citizens."


Virtually no one thinks we have "credibility" and we have long ago embarrassed ourselves to the point that their is not the faintest hint of blush evident when we tell bald faced lies.

The citizens don't trust the government and the world doesn't trust the U.S. government either.

Any government that ultimately backs us has been bribed, threatened or already has a dog in this fight.

The American people want no part of this.

BUT WHEN WE ATTACK ANYWAY-
NO DEPLETED URANIUM OR WHITE PHOSPHORUS!
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 19:01
you are so right. The American people don't trust this government, believe this government or want this government. It is not a government for the people. It is more and more obviously a government for corporate profits, of the multinational corporations at the top of profit making in this age.--What the people of America want is a government for the people, but in order to get that we will have to have a government made up of the people, not of politicians handed to us by the major political parties, for us to choose either bad or worse. It would be a huge amount of work for us people to look around among ourselves and identify competent people with expertise in a single field, and convince a large group of them to come together and support each other in office, should they be elected BY US. But, we gotta do it! It's the only way we are going to have a government of the people for the people.
 
 
+3 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 18:09
ah, my friend. We need more than a worse option. We need a government by the people, of the people, for the people. We ain't gonna get a government "for the people" by voting for either a republican or a democrat, no matter how good their speeches sound while they are campaigning, or even how good they sounded before they ran for president. The major political parties spend million on their conventions alone. Then there's tv time and radio time, and all those flights all over the country. The parties need the money from billionaires who can afford the bills. We can't get representatives of the people from those parties. We are going to have to dig around among ourselves, non politicians, and find experts who are competent to band together with a large group of other people who are not politicians and who are competent and have expertise in one area, and who tell the truth. When we have identified such a group, we need to elect them to offices, all the offices including president of the United States. Anyone who thinks that a person who is not a seasoned politician would be incompetent to be president of the United States needs to think it through. No one who is a seasoned politician supported by a political party is free to represent the people of the United States.
 
 
+6 # 1984 2013-09-07 11:48
President Bush, oh, excuse me, I mean President Obama has become "experienced" very quickly...lack of experience was an argument against his candidacy in 2008.
If only he would get dressed!
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2013-09-09 19:46
Quoting 1984:
President Bush, oh, excuse me, I mean President Obama has become "experienced" very quickly...lack of experience was an argument against his candidacy in 2008.
If only he would get dressed!

Dimwits please!
At least Obama isn't worthy of that title.
Give him your own as events unfold in this rather crucial point in his presidency, which at least was legitimate in terms of popular vote and the stupid Electoral college, unlike his shitful predecessor.
As Iago said before embarking on his plot to discredit Iago;
"This is the night,
That makes me-
Or unmakes me quite"!
 
 
+1 # Kathymoi 2013-09-07 19:05
We want a president who represents the people, but we voted in a politician funded personally by a multimillionair e and funded collectively by the democrat party. Both major political parties get their funding from the billionaires, and both major political parties have to give them favors to get that kind of money. We can't get a president who represents the people from either party. We need to find our own candidate, amongst the people who are not politicians, and we need to surround that competent person with a huge group of non politicians who also have expertise in one area and who don't lie and who will represent humans and not corporate profits. This, I have come to understand, is what government of the people, by the people and for the people means.
 
 
+3 # Marxian 2013-09-08 02:21
"Voting" in Amerika is little more then an exercise in futility. The population is so misinformed and uninformed that a "vote" becomes meaningless. A cursory examination of the huge propaganda media machine shows the similarity to Orwell's "Ministry of Truth". There can be no government of the people, etc., until the lies and rot have been swept away.
 
 
0 # brux 2013-09-10 21:01
How do we sweep away all the lies and rot?
Any ideas?
 
 
+1 # Jeffrey22 2013-09-09 11:28
First stage organizing "The People" :

http://www.universalpartyamerica.com/

http://www.omniartsalon.com/?p=1770
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN